David Von Pein

What a crock. If by "original", you mean "primary" sources, then, yes, I love those types of sources too -- "primary" ones, like the original investigations and the official Government follow-up investigations [e.g., DPD, WC, HSCA, Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission] and the "primary" witnesses involved in the case. But you, Jim, seem to like to THROW AWAY almost all of the "primary" source material. You find a reason (any reason) to toss all of that "primary" (first day) evidence right into the trash can (e.g., the guns, bullets, prints, fibers, paper bag, bullet shells, the autopsy report, the autopsy photos, and lots more). You don't USE those primary sources and first-day evidence. You MISuse those things. Every last one of them. With Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being a prime example of how you misuse (and totally mangle) the evidence in this case. You've done everything in your power to take that gun out of the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and even out of his hands at ANY point in time in the year 1963. You're so enamored with the silly idea that Oswald never touched Rifle C2766 that you are now even saying that Oswald never even ORDERED that rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods. And Oswald having ordered and paid for a rifle from Klein's is a rock-solid fact that no reasonable and sensible person on the planet who has looked at the evidence can possibly deny. And yet Mr. DiEugenio denies it--and vehemently. What a crock. And what a joke you are. And that's just one example (among dozens) of how DiEugenio treats the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases. There ought to be some kind of law against it. But I guess freedom of speech (and, in Jim's case, the freedom to look like a horse's hind quarters when he pretends that all of the evidence against Oswald is fake) overrides any hope I ever had of James DiEugenio being able to properly assess any of the evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination. A 22-point reminder (in case anyone missed it).... The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

I guess Tom needs a hint.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/hoover-and-oswald.html

I never said the mastoid WASN'T a "movable" part of the body. What I said was it would be FIXED if the body is in the anatomical position, as would ANY other body landmark. Isn't that fact obvious? Same with Dr. Wecht's preference of taking measurements "from the top of the head". But it's still the HEAD, which is MOVABLE. All parts of the human head are movable.

Oh yeah. That's right, Cliff. I am always going around pretending the physical evidence doesn't exist, aren't I? Guns, prints, bullets, witnesses, shells. I never mention any of that stuff, do I? But apparently the ONLY "real evidence" in the whole case is the clothing of JFK. Right? Nothing else matters. It's all about the clothes (as always), according to One-Note Cliff. Geez Louise, Cliff. You're obsessed with haberdashery. (Is there a doctor who specializes in that? If so, make an appointment---quick!)

No, it's the truth that you don't want to face. And you'll just ignore the immense "Two Bullets That Didn't Exit" problem too. Won't you, Bob? And you'll ignore, as always, the fact that every Government investigation into JFK's death---plus the autopsy doctors too!---concluded that one bullet DID go all the way through Kennedy's body. But what do THEY know, right? After all, the HSCA's FPP was only comprised of NINE very trained pathologists. But we'll just trust Dr. Prudhomme instead of placing an ounce of faith in those NINE medical doctors. Right, Bobby? Oh, you mean the other 99 times you posted your charts and graphs was just the warm-up? The real ballgame hasn't started yet, eh? Good. I've got time to get a hot dog and a Dr. Pepper (LHO's favorite) before game time then. Bring it on, Dr. Anatomy. My answer will still be the same. It'll be that "child's rant" I posted above --- which is the absolute truth and you know it. But waste more bandwidth on 22 more anatomy charts if you want. I'm going to watch the Reds game instead.

Jon, I agree with the Government's conclusions about Oswald's guilt if that's what you mean. But....so what? Millions of people agree with the Government's "Oswald Did It" conclusion. I'm just one of them. Although, to hear Jim DiEugenio tell it, it would seem as if the "LN" club consisted of just a very few people on the whole planet --- myself, the late Vince Bugliosi, Tom Hanks, and Gerald Posner....and that's about it. But there are a lot of other people in the world who think Oswald killed JFK (and probably did it alone). Those people just don't hang out on JFK Internet forums every day of their lives.

Don't tell me that I'm just a patsy in this thing, and that I'm merely being used (unwittingly) by the wicked United States Government! Please, God, no!! Anything but that! Maybe you, Jon, can help me better understand my "role" in this confusing and complex swine-filled JFK-related labyrinthine underbelly. Because I am, you see, nothing but a puppet on the string of an evil Government empire which is built on lies and deceit and treachery. Can you help me escape this torturous dungeon, Jon? For if Jon G. Tidd won't help me overcome the Dark Side, who will? Obi-Wan? Thank you so much, Jon. In reality, of course, the Government's theory is simple because this case, when boiled down to its basics, IS simple --- one man with one gun murdered the President from the murderer's workplace one day in November of 1963. There's nothing complicated or complex about what Lee Harvey Oswald did that day in Dallas. He smuggled his own rifle to work in a paper bag and got extremely lucky when the perfect opportunity was presented to him at 12:30 PM on the vacant sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. The above "simple" scenario is what the evidence shows happened, and is what the history books will record as the probable truth for centuries to come. ------------- "Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- President John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961 "What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963 Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

You've got a very short memory, Bobby. Just thirteen days ago, we had this exchange.... You don't KNOW that the bullet would have absolutely HAD to have struck JFK's vertebrae. You're GUESSING. That's all. Nothing more. You know, of course, that many many doctors (pathologists) have endorsed the idea that one bullet DID transit through JFK's upper back and neck, including the three autopsy surgeons. But you don't care about all those doctors' opinions, do you? You think Bob Prudhomme, MD, is MUCH more qualified to tell the world about this matter. Right, Bob? Tell me, Bob, what year did you graduate medical school? And why should I toss the entire WC and HSCA and Clark Panel and Rockefeller Commission and the autopsy doctors under the bus because some self-appointed "expert of the human vertebrae" has posted endless amounts of his anti-SBT opinions at various Internet forums? In short, you need to dig up John F. Kennedy's body in order to have a chance at proving your anti-SBT theory. Plus, when we factor in the absurd "Two Bullets Entered & Never Exited & Both Bullets Disappeared" alternative, it then becomes quite clear that the idea of a NON-transiting missile entering JFK's body is an idea not even worth considering---and that's because the CTers need TWO of those non-transiting bullets to make their theory work. And what rational person could possibly even begin to accept such a remote possibility?

Desperation? When battling this group of "Anybody But Oswald" and "Pert-Near Everything's Fake" conspiracy theorists that inhabit this forum? Surely you jest, Bobby. And I love Jimbo's post about the FBI lying about the Seymour/Hall/Odio matter. But it apparently never occurred to Jim that the FBI was evidently ALSO telling the unvarnished TRUTH about the very same Seymour/Hall/Odio matter in another one of the FBI's own reports (or was it the same FBI report, Jim?). DiEugenio posted this quote from Sylvia Meagher's book.... "That FBI report indicates that only two days after the original locating of Loran Eugene Hall on September 16, 1964, an interview with William Seymour...elicited a denial that he was even in Dallas in September 1963 or had ever had any contacts with Sylvia Odio. " (p. 387) So, evidently the VERY SAME FBI that lied, per James DiEugenio, to the Warren Commission about Loran Hall and William Seymour decided to tell the truth about those men (or at least about Seymour) just two days later. Go figure that. ~shrug~

But, Ray, the autopsy photos and X-rays are in AGREEMENT with another piece of photographic evidence -- the Zapruder Film. The Z-Film shows that the BACK of President Kennedy's head was not "blown out". So, along with the autopsy photos, you must also think the Z-Film was altered too, right Ray? Is there ANY point in this case when you feel it's okay to put on the brakes when it comes to this "Massive Fakery Overload" thing you CTers have got going on? (Just wondering.)

The X-rays themselves answer your last question, Jim. And this X-ray was proven to be a legit and unaltered X-ray by the HSCA..... "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41 Now, tell me again how those 20 experts on the HSCA's Photographic Panel were all rotten liars when they signed off on 7 HSCA 41. And then you can tell everybody about your fantasy about there being a huge hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head---which, of course, doesn't exist at all in the X-ray pictured above. More fakery... More Government liars... More fake reports... Right, Jimmy? Does the fakery ever end in this case (or, I should say, in your colorful imagination)?

You're funny, Martin.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: You're funny, Martin. The truth is, of course, that ANY "body landmark" is going to be FIXED (i.e., immobile) during a post-mortem examination---because wounds are being located from landmarks while the body is in the anatomic ("autopsy") position---rigid and straight. And that's true for the mastoid process or any other body landmark. Do you, Martin, think that President Kennedy's mastoid process was moving all over the place while it was being used as a measuring landmark while JFK was lying flat on a table in an anatomic position? (And I have no reason to believe that the autopsy doctors were so stupid that they chose to measure distances on JFK's body while his body was in some position OTHER than the standard "autopsy" position. If the doctors started measuring distances while Kennedy's body was in some contorted or "bent over" position, then those doctors would, of course, deserve all the criticism I could blast them with. But I have no reason to believe they were THAT idiotic. Do you, Martin?) While most pathologists might very well have measured the wounds from different body landmarks than those utilized by Dr. Humes in November 1963, it makes very little difference, because we DO have a SPECIFIC and PRECISE measurement for the back wound as it relates to a known body landmark on John F. Kennedy's body. You know it. I know it. The HSCA knew it. So, once again, a huge useless mountain is being made out of total nothingness by a conspiracy theorist. And Martin Hay is dead wrong when he said this: "The autopsy doctors did not record the precise location of the back wound. That is, was, and always will be a FACT no matter what David Von Pein says." The above statement is a blatant falsehood and always will be for as long as Hay continues to spout such tommyrot. The precise location of JFK's back wound was most certainly located and all sensible people know it. MARTIN HAY SAID: You're hilarious, David. You want everyone to buy the notion that somehow you know better than the 10 forensic pathologists I cited, despite the fact that you don't even know that the "anatomic position" is a standing position! ROFL Brilliant. You're like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail who has his arms and legs chopped off but still won't admit he's been defeated. But you've been proven wrong whether you want to admit it or not. The wound's precise location on the back cannot be determined by its distance from the mastoid process. That's a cold, hard fact. The HSCA knew it. Finck knew it. Humes knew it. And you know it. Keep on trollin', David. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Dr. Cyril Wecht has always maintained that measurements at an autopsy should be taken from "the mid-point of the body" and "from the top of the head". OK, that sounds totally reasonable to me. But given those standards, it would still elicit the same basic concerns that a measurement from the "mastoid" would elicit. Why? Because the head is a movable part of the body. Therefore, the "TOP of the head" can be moved. It's not really "fixed", is it? So the same concerns about the starting point for measurements can still easily be debated even when utilizing Dr. Wecht's "from the top of the head" recommendation. Unless, that is, the body is placed in a standard position, such as the autopsy or "anatomical" position. And the last time I checked, it's not possible for a dead body to STAND UP, and yet we still hear about the "anatomical position" being described in relation to autopsies on human bodies. (Go figure.) And if the body is in the anatomical (autopsy) position, then a measurement from the mastoid process is probably just as reliable and accurate as measuring downward "from the top of the head". DVP March/April 2015

So, Jim, are you therefore implying that if there was a SECOND Face Sheet, that fact means that the wound in JFK's upper back was really located somewhere OTHER than "14 cm. below tip of rt. mastoid process"? Which would mean that Dr. Humes must have been part of the grand plot to fake Boswell's face sheet(s) too, because Humes wrote those EXACT MEASUREMENTS on Page 3 of the autopsy report (WR; Page 540), which is a report that was signed by all three autopsy surgeons on 11/24/63. Your vivid imagination turns legitimate evidence into forged evidence almost every day of the week, doesn't it Jimbo? And you don't even have the decency to blush.

Wow! That's the best you can do, Jimmy? One very hazy and indistinct report regarding people who have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the physical evidence in the JFK assassination? Mighty weak, Jim. In fact, pathetic. But thanks for illustrating that the BEST the mighty James DiEugenio can do in an effort to PROVE that ANY evidence was faked in the JFK case is a reference to a quote in Sylvia Meagher's 1967 book, which is a blurb involving the Odio incident, which everybody knows (even me) is a great-big huge QUESTION MARK to begin with. As Jimbo's favorite of all female authors (hehe) said in her 1983 book.... "When these men visited Odio's apartment, Kennedy's trip to Dallas had not even been scheduled, let alone announced. ... No one on earth could have known that Oswald would ultimately land a job in a building that would overlook a Kennedy motorcade. But the frame-up theory's ultimate weakness involves the critics' conception of Lee Harvey Oswald. In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a piece of chaff blown about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb and compliant puppet with no volition of his own. If the man Odio saw was an impostor, how could the plotters be certain no witnesses would be able to establish Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening -- unless they ordered the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight? And if the real Oswald was used, how did the anti-Castro plotters get their Marxist enemy to stand at Odio's door to be introduced as a friend of the Cuban exiles? No one has come up with a plausible scenario that can answer those questions. ... The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain what it meant." -- Jean Davison; Pages 193-195 of "Oswald's Game" http://oswalds-game.blogspot.com

I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion..... RONALD WIECK SAID: I just received a copy of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". Having read the first fifty pages, I can state that book promises to become the One-Stop Shop for everyone tired of the incessant yammering of agenda-driven conspiracy peddlers. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thank you, Ronald, very much. TRACY RIDDLE SAID: A detailed critique of the book by Martin Hay: http://ctka.net/"Beyond Reasonable Doubt" Book Review DAVID VON PEIN SAID: What a surprise --- a conspiracy theorist (Martin Hay) disagrees with LNers. ~yawn~ And it's no surprise to see Martin Hay doing what all Internet CTers do every day---trying to explain away all the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald. Martin believes all the evidence is fake and phony. If he didn't believe that, then Oswald's guilty. And Martin doesn't like that idea at all. So, the evidence is ALL fraudulent---from the rifle to the paper bag to Howard Brennan and everything in-between. And I'm wondering why Mr. Hay is telling this false tale in his BRD book review at CTKA?..... "Although the precise location of the back wound was not recorded by Kennedy's pathologists..." -- Martin Hay Hay is dead wrong about that statement. The autopsy Face Sheet records the exact location of the upper-back wound. It's the precise location of the throat wound which wasn't recorded by Humes, Boswell, and Finck. Maybe Hay meant to say "throat wound" instead of "back wound" above. ~shrug~ But, in any event, Martin knows full well that no bullets were found inside JFK's body, and there was very little damage inside Kennedy's upper back and neck that could have stopped a rifle bullet, let alone stopping TWO such bullets, which is the number of missiles (two) that Hay needs to disappear into thin air if he thinks the bullet that struck JFK's back did not transit the President's body. But common sense was never a strong suit of JFK conspiracy theorists. Their constant refusal to accept the truth of the Single-Bullet Theory has been proving that fact for fifty years. TRACY RIDDLE SAID: That's it, David? You found a typo error? You can't refute anything else he wrote? No, all we get is more bold assertions and hyperbole. Howard Brennan? Most LNers on the internet gave up using Brennan a long time ago. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Tracy, I've seen all of the silly excuses for ignoring all of the Oswald-Did-It evidence before. Nothing Martin Hay had to say in his review surprised me. I expected it. Hay's review is merely the most recent excuse for conspiracists like him to raise their Internet voices so they can (once again) pretend that Oswald never ordered the rifle and never took the rifle into the TSBD and never shot at General Walker, etc., etc. to absurdity. If you want to see each foolish claim made by CTers debunked, I've got pages on my websites that accomplish that task fairly well (IMO). But I'm not going to type out 5,000 words on these [Amazon.com] forums to refute Hay's fairy tale beliefs. That's why I've archived everything at my own sites, so I don't have to type it all out again every time these things come up (which they constantly do). Regarding Howard Brennan.... Do you think LNers like myself (and Mel Ayton) should just completely IGNORE Mr. Brennan, is that it? We should just toss Howard under the wheels of SS-100-X and pretend he never told the Warren Commission that the man he saw shoot JFK was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that it? And do you think the whole case against Oswald rests on the shoulders of only Howard Brennan? Why would anyone think that? Even without Brennan, Oswald is still guilty as ever. And the evidence proves it. Brennan's testimony merely corroborates and buttresses what all reasonable people can already figure out for themselves based on the physical evidence and Oswald's own actions---i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy. TRACY RIDDLE SAID: Truth is not determined by opinion poll, especially since most people have never studied this case in depth (and that includes your average supporter of the Warren Commission, as well as many conspiracy believers, such as Alex Jones, who just makes up stuff). DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I agree with Tracy on this point about "polls". Most people who are polled probably have no idea who J.D. Tippit was. And while it's true that I have brought up the fact (with some delight) that the public opinion polls have shown that the number of conspiracy believers in the JFK case is dwindling in recent years, I have heard many CTers prop up the type of statement simulated below. In fact, I'm confronted with this very argument all the time on the Internet.... "David, the majority of Americans think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Do you really think that 85% or 90% or 95% [and the CTer will ALWAYS inflate the percentage to a figure that has never really been that high] of the public is wrong or are liars?" But, as Tracy suggested, it's very likely that the vast majority of that "80 to 90%" has no detailed knowledge of the evidence in the case at all. They've watched Oliver Stone's movie or saw something online or watched a documentary for the 50th anniversary, and drew their conclusions based on just those few things. Yes, there are a lot of conspiracy authors telling Americans not to believe anything in the Warren Report. But I have found over the last few years that whenever I have decided to check out some "conspiracy claim" in some detail, that pro-conspiracy story invariably turns out to be bogus and nothing but a long-believed myth with no basis in actual fact. One conspiracy author from the "early days" (the 1960s) says something and that story (i.e., myth) gets passed on from one author to the next and to the next. I see that thing occurring on a regular basis when discussing the JFK case. A very good example of this is something that author and LNer Jean Davison pointed out in an online post in 2011 concerning whether or not Oswald's rifle and revolver purchases should have required certain paperwork. As it turns out, the CTers who insist on repeating this myth are the ones who are very likely incorrect (as usual) --- CLICK HERE. And a year before Jean's post linked above, I was arguing with CTers about the postal regulations too. And as I prove HERE, Mark Lane is probably one of the very last people on this planet you should trust when it comes to this matter. TRACY RIDDLE SAID: No other county in America -- and almost no state, for that matter -- has freed more innocent people from prison in recent years than Dallas County, where [Henry] Wade was DA from 1951 through 1986. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The "Henry Wade's convictions are being overturned in record numbers" excuse that conspiracy theorists now commonly utilize in order to pretend all the evidence against Oswald was fake and planted is just another convenient cop-out. Henry Wade didn't collect any of the evidence that proves Oswald's guilt. He would have merely presented that evidence at Oswald's trial (had LHO not been killed). Now yes, it's also true that Wade HIMSELF very likely didn't initially collect any of the evidence in those cases where guilty verdicts were overturned. But the JFK case is not at all similar to those "other" cases, and that's because in THIS case (the JFK case), we---the public---could practically watch the evidence unfold before our very eyes as the events were playing themselves out on live television and radio on 11/22/63. Do the conspiracy theorists really think that Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade was pulling the strings of all those DPD officers, along with the strings of Captain Fritz and Chief Curry, during those early hours immediately after the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit? Do the CTers think Henry Wade HIMSELF was somehow able to manipulate all of the first-day evidence so that it all would point to a so-called "patsy" named Lee Oswald? (Not counting the "Mauser" mistake made by some of the officers. But with respect to the "Mauser" error -- do CTers think Henry Wade was somehow responsible for turning the "Mauser" into a Carcano? And did Henry Wade himself somehow alter the Alyea Film, which is a film that many rifle experts have said definitely shows a CARCANO---not a MAUSER---being picked up off of the sixth floor of the TSBD by DPD Lieutenant J.C. Day?) In short, the CTers who like to accuse Henry Wade of sinister and underhanded activity in the JFK murder case are just as silly as the CTers who engage in that same type of tortured reasoning when it comes to the Warren Commission too. Many CTers falsely claim that the JFK evidence is the "Warren Commission's evidence" -- as if the WC collected and processed and tested all the evidence THEMSELVES. They didn't do anything of the kind, of course. The WC merely evaluated and assessed the evidence that had been gathered long before the Commission was ever created. The evidence existed in this case many days before the WC was even born. And it existed prior to Henry Wade ever becoming aware of that evidence too. And I wonder how the "Wade Haters" can deal with Lee Oswald's VERY OWN ACTIONS on both November 21 and 22? Will the Wade haters simply pretend that Oswald's actions on those two days are actions that lead more toward Oswald's complete INNOCENCE rather than his guilt? (How could any rational person possibly go down that rocky road? And why would they even want to?) Most juries get it right. If they convict a defendant, I'd wager to say that 99% of the time that person who is on trial is guilty. Otherwise the defendant wouldn't have been charged with the crime in the first place, because there would have been no EVIDENCE to suggest to the authorities that that person had committed the crime. But CTers will pick out and highlight the 1% of criminal cases where it's been shown that a jury reached the wrong verdict, with those CTers ignoring the fact that 99% of the time the juries in the United States reach the proper verdict. Of course, there is a high-profile example of a jury reaching the incorrect verdict---the O.J. Simpson trial. But Tracy Riddle should at least be happy that that wasn't a case where an innocent person was wrongly convicted. In O.J.'s case, it was just the opposite---an obviously guilty man was set free. MARTIN HAY SAID: The autopsy doctors absolutely did not record the precise location of the back wound. You know it, I know it, and so does every first-year student of the assassination. This is a fact for which the pathologists were specifically criticized by the HSCA forensic pathology panel. In its report to the committee, the panel noted that "The measures essential to a thorough medicolegal autopsy that the pathologists failed to take" included "Recording precisely the locations of the wounds according to anatomical landmarks routinely used in forensic pathology. The medical panel of the committee stated that the reference points used to document the location of the wound in the upper back--the mastoid process and the acromion--are moveable points and should not have been used." (7HSCA17) DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, sure, Martin. I guess this Face Sheet is just a figment of my imagination. And so is this writing on that Face Sheet --- "14 cm. below tip of rt. mastoid process". But apparently Martin Hay doesn't think that that particular measurement is precise enough to even come anywhere close to denoting the true location of JFK's upper-back wound. Is that correct, Martin? Therefore, Martin will only accept a DIFFERENT exacting measurement and totally disregard the "mastoid" and "acromion" measurements, even though Dr. Humes specifically said this to the ARRB in 1996: QUESTION -- When you recorded it a being from the right mastoid process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process was a fixed body landmark? DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people. You're really in trouble if it does. QUESTION -- Well, is it a fixed landmark, fixed body landmark with respect to the thoracic cavity? DR. HUMES -- It's fixed with regard to respect anything you want it respected to. MARTIN HAY SAID: Nowhere in my review do I state or even suggest that "all the evidence is fake and phony". .... I never suggested that there was anything "fraudulent" about the rifle. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Good. Then Oswald is guilty. He has to be guilty if the evidence is not "fake" or "phony" or "fraudulent". Right? Because how could he possibly be innocent if the evidence is truly legitimate? So, it's good to have that cleared up. You've just admitted that Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 is not "fraudulent". And you've admitted that you DON'T think "all the evidence is fake and phony". Which I assume would indicate that you think at least SOME of the evidence is real and legitimate and worthy of being utilized to try and solve the JFK murder case. Correct? At this rate, you'll be an LNer before you know it, Martin. Because there are very few Internet conspiracists who are willing to stipulate that ANY of the evidence against Oswald is legit. MARTIN HAY SAID: I've said it before and I'll say it again: You, David Von Pein, are living proof that Mark Twain was correct when he said that common sense is something uneducated people attribute to themselves. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I've said it before and I'll say it again.... Internet conspiracy theorists are unquestionably the very last people on the face of the globe who should be looking into the assassination of America's 35th President. If they suddenly become capable of properly evaluating anything relating to JFK's demise, please notify CNN at once! Because that will surely be worthy of a "Breaking News" bulletin! More here.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-918.html

My, how witty. All those Colonel Sanders references, but nothing about Popcorn Chicken or Mashed Taters or DVP's Secret Blend of 11 Herbs and WC Lies? What the heck is the matter with you, Mark? Get on the ball. More fun with the Colonel.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkGaT7FJ4ZY

I'm not surprised, Ken. You can't even figure out who killed J.D. Tippit. (And it doesn't take Basil Rathbone to figure that one out.) If you ever get something right when it comes to the subject of the JFK assassination, I'll faint dead away from the shock. My favorite Kenny-ism is this wondrous hunk of brilliance from the keyboard of Mr. Drew.... "There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle." -- Kenneth Drew; June 1, 2015 Maybe you should add the above blurb to your signature, Ken. After all, based on your current choice of signatures, you obviously don't care how ridiculous you look.

I take it, then, from that brilliant comment you just graced us with, Bobby, that you CAN prove that all the evidence connected with the murders of President John F. Kennedy and Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit is fraudulent. Correct? I'm all ears. For some reason, you seem to think that my hind quarters are missing; but I have really good hearing. So let's hear that "proof" I've been waiting for forever. Any chance you'll be supplying any?

Jimmy, I know this is going to shock you greatly, but I'm going to still choose to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was in no way connected to or employed by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. And I still favor my previous explanation when it comes to the delay in opening Oswald's 201 file at the CIA -- "bureaucratic red tape and foot-dragging." Also, do you think that when a person is put on a "Watch List for mail interception" by the CIA, this action is somehow an indication that the person being placed on the Watch List works for the same agency? That seems like a rather odd leap of logic to me. It would seem to me that the fact Oswald was on a CIA "Watch List" would be a pretty good sign right there that the man being "watched" is NOT a person who is already employed by the CIA. Because if Oswald is with the CIA, then why would there be any need to put him on some kind of a "Watch List"? Or maybe it was merely a "fake" Watch List to throw people off. Is that it, Jimmy? And let me also add the following excerpts from Vince Bugliosi's book concerning the subject of Lee Oswald's 201 CIA file....

Ridiculous. Hoover wasn't "controlling" the evidence when the DPD collected it. You think everything got switched to "LHO Did It" evidence by Hoover, Tom? Do you really believe that? And do you think Hoover was "controlling" each of the witnesses who gave statements to the Dallas police or Sheriff's office saying it was Oswald they saw near the Tippit shooting? I get a big kick out of the idea that J. Edgar Hoover--of all people on the planet!--would have wanted to frame an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald for the two murders in Dallas in November 1963. In reality, of course, Hoover would have probably been about the LAST person in America who would have wanted to frame Oswald. And everybody here should know why that is so. Just think about it for a couple of minutes and maybe the light bulb will go on.

Yeah, so I've been told (thousands of times) by CTers. But, to date, I've yet to see a smidgen of something called PROOF to back up the non-stop allegations of evidence fakery that we keep hearing about from conspiracy theorists. For a change, let's see some PROOF that shows that ALL of the evidence that incriminates Mr. Oswald is fake evidence. Got any PROOF, David? Or should we just rely on CTer instinct and guesswork like we've been doing for the last 51 years? So, you'll have to pardon me for not hopping on board the "Everything Was Faked To Frame Oswald" gravy train. That train was doomed to derail before it ever left the station. Many conspiracy theorists will travel to the ends of the Earth to pretend that ALL of the evidence is phony. And it's no wonder that they do. Because if they DON'T, then their patsy is guilty of two murders. And it's really just that simple. And the Internet conspiracy theorists just don't like the idea of a guilty Lee Harvey Oswald at all.

I'd say the delay in opening Oswald's 201 file was merely bureaucratic red tape and foot-dragging. Nothing more. And certainly nothing sinister. It was opened, as I recall, in December 1960, about a year after Oswald left for Russia (which was in Oct. '59). But so what? Where do you want to go with the one-year delay, Jim? What is the delay supposed to mean anyway? And how does the one-year delay in opening the 201 file somehow indicate that the subject of that 201 file was working for U.S. Intelligence? Things in Government sometimes get delayed. Big deal. Is that really a surprise to you, Jim?

Yeah, right, Jim. In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics would present it", Vince would have had to touch base with every single CTer who has ever posted on the Internet (or who has ever written one of the hundreds of books on the case), because almost every CTer has at least a slightly different theory or approach to the evidence in the case. A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the CTers themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some conspiracy theorist out there who will be able to say (after reading "RH") -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a l-i-a-r! He didn't present THIS part of the case in the exact way *I* think it should have been presented, and therefore I get to call Vince a cheat and a l-i-a-r. It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as CTers want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he had written 10,000 pages instead of just 2,800. But I, myself, think Vince did just fine in debunking virtually all of the major conspiraciy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it.

Jon, What exactly do you mean when you say that Oswald was "served up to the FBI"? Oswald was never in "FBI custody". He was always in DPD custody. And one of the big problems CTers have is constructing a reasonable and sensible "Oswald Was Framed" theory since it would by necessity need to involve people from various law enforcement agencies -- the DPD, the FBI, the Sheriff's Department, and the Secret Service. All of those agencies had a hand in gathering and processing at least some of the evidence that incriminates Oswald (e.g., the front-seat bullet fragments were first touched by the SS; the rifles and Sniper's Nest evidence was first handled by the DPD; several Dallas Deputy Sheriffs were on the sixth floor and first discovered all of the TSBD evidence; and we all know the CTers love to blame Hoover for a lot of evidence switching and other assorted tomfoolery with documents, etc., so that puts the FBI in the middle of the alleged frame-up too, or even in the LEAD, even though the FBI didn't actually COLLECT a single bit of the evidence, they just tested it). And then you've got some witnesses (like Randle and Frazier) whom some CTers claim were also allegedly helping to frame Oswald by telling huge lies about the evidence, even to the point of just making up a paper bag out of whole cloth. (That's how far off the rails of reality many CTers have strayed.) So if Oswald was truly innocent, we'd have to believe that many individuals were trying their darndest to make it look like Oswald was guilty -- and guilty of TWO murders on November 22 too, not just one killing. The Tippit murder cannot be brushed aside as just an unrelated murder on that same day the President was killed (although some CTers seem to brush it aside anyway). Given the evidence against him, believing in Oswald's guilt is quite easy to do. In fact, it's impossible, IMO, to believe Oswald could have been innocent of TWO murders with the evidence that exists against him. And believing it's all been manufactured to make an innocent man look guilty is too much to stomach---because there's TOO MUCH evidence to manufacture and get away with such a scheme. But CTers, particularly on the Internet, seem to lean toward all the evidence being fake anyway, despite the implausible nature of such massive fakery being attempted and--even more unlikely--the evidence fakers being able to get away with every last bit of it. And then when we add in the implications of Oswald's own actions ON TOP of the large pile of evidence that all points toward LHO (guns, bullets, shells, the paper bag, and fingerprints), it becomes much much more difficult to envision a large-scale "Let's Frame Oswald" plot. For how on Earth did those same evidence planters/manipulators (or even a DIFFERENT group of plotters) manage to get a totally innocent Lee Harvey Oswald to do the unorthodox things he did on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22? If the EVIDENCE + OSWALD'S ACTIONS don't add up to a guilty Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63, I'd sure like to know why not.